Group : Kevin Brown, Nick Dahlen, David Forrest

Over the years the Roman empire greatly expanded through conquest.
Those conquered people, however, were brought into the Roman fold
relatively peacefully. Most, particularly those in urban centers,
accepted the romanization of their culture and Roman rule. There were
five main reasons for this acceptance.

The first reason was the peace that living under the Roman empire
brought. Peace under the Roman empire, known as pax Romana was
different than general notions of peace, as this peace was distinctly
"Roman". This general sense of peace was highly valued, "The greatest
blessings that cities can enjoy are peace, prosperity, populousness, and
concord" (RCII 7). In addition, the Roman legions were stationed along
the frontier to protect against outside invasion, rather than inhabiting
the cities to quell dissent from the various conquered people. Yes very good, but this last sentence is a little misleading. Why were the armies based on the borders? Was it because outside threats were more pressing than inside threats? Or does it suggest that there were no inside threats, or dissent to quell from inside the borders?

A second main reason for the acceptance of Romanization was the high
urban standards brought by the Roman empire. Roman administrators
invested heavily in urban areas throughout the empire, in a variety of
capacities. Instead of spending great sums on military conquest, the
Roman rulers invested instead in their people. Various projects to make
the cities more livable, such as sewers, aqueducts, water mills, etc..
all provided amenities those in the Roman empire did not have prior to
Roman rule. In addition, the Roman administration invested in projects
without a direct monetary return, such as theaters, to improve the
cultural standards of the communities. Good

Romans also made a deliberate effort to include all those throughout
the empire into the Roman system. Whether one came from Spain or
Greece, as long as they were in the Roman empire, they were all Roman,
"all else is common between us...there is no privilege no exclusion"
(Tacitus). In addition, Roman senators, writers, thinkers, emperors,
came from all over the empire, not just Rome proper. All citizens of
rome were seen as equal in terms of citizenship, no matter their
location in the empire. Good, also should talk about tolerance of religious differences.

Local regions were also allowed to maintain a level of autonomy.
Although the constitution was all but suspended in Rome itself,
elections and constitutionality still occurred in various other urban
centers throughout the Roman empire. There is evidence pointing to
contested and seemingly fair elections occurring, "He shall likewise see
to it that three citizens of the said municipality are placed at the
ballot box...to guard and count the ballots" (RC II 64). Provinces were
allowed to hold their elections, and the presence of overseers to
maintain ballot security both indicate elections had generally more than
one candidate, and there was a general interest in keeping the elections
fair. Yes

Although we haven't discussed law yet, Roman notions of law still
greatly contributed to the people's desire to become Roman. Equitable
treatment under the judicial system and benevolent notions of justice
and trial all made the roman system of law desirable.

Great response, very thorough and good use of evidence. You did a really good job of explaining each benefit andWHY it would have been appealing to foreigners.

Group : Sarah M. Eric D. Scott P. Ross G.

Romanization occured throughout the empire due to the many advantages
that went along with being part of the empire. Most importantly were
peace and urban amenities.

Romans valued peace and prosperity, much like contempary societies, this
can be seen from plutarch. "The greatest blessings that cities can enjoy
are peace, prosperitiy, populousness, and concord.(sec 7)" Within
borders of the empire we can assume there was a peaceful state in the
augustan age and the following years, this is evident by the stationing of military forces
compeletly on the borders (map). By not having legions scattered
throughout the empire the Roman must have administered over a relatively
peaceful state. Furthermore, by not needing a larger army to pacify
there own population, Rome was able to keep a small and relatively cheap
military force. Which allowed for public building plans, urban amenities, etc.

The Roman state, in order to cultivate the urban lifestyle, invested
greatly in the infastructure needed for cities and a high quality of
life. The state built aquaducts, publics baths, sewers, theaters, and
public forums(photos). All of these buildings served to raise the
standard of living and quality of life. It encouraged once nomadic
people to adopt a lifestyle much like the people of Rome. This in turn
kept populations orderly and peaceful, this is one of the reasons the
Roman army was able to focus just on borders. Exactly, good.

The lesson that can be learned from the Romans is that by investing into
your infastructure and providing your people with a high quality of life
you can secure a peaceful and prosperous state. By providing this
standard of living you are able to pacify the people and integrate them
into a functional and stable state.

Excellent, the only things missing are the mention of inclusion and tolerance, which arguably plays an incredibly crucial role in the above mentioned lesson about creating a prosperous and peaceful state.

Group : Brendan G, Matt H

Subjects in the Roman Empire in far reaching corners of the
Mediterranean Sea sought Roman Citizenship for several reasons.
Firstly, because peace and higher standards of living that were attributed to
Roman and urban life. Plutarch, on page 23 comments: “As far as peace
is concerned the people have no need of political activity, for all war,
both Greek and foreign, has been banished and has disappeared from among
us.”

Subjects also appreciated the tolerance of diversity that the Roman’s
afforded them. People in Gaul or Iberia were able to serve as
politicians, and be considered equals with Roman writers and theorists.
While not initially large in numbers, emperors and senators from outside of italy came to Rome
to serve in the government, and be integral parts of the Roman Republic.
Germanicus, on page 52 says: “…I am aware that persons of this category
do not have too strong a basis for Roman citizenship; nevertheless…I
permit them by my indulgence to retain the legal status which they
believed was theirs.” Good quote, but aimed more at the willingness of Romans to extend citizenship to foreigners. A better piece of evidence for the case you are making about the diversity of backgrounds for the Roman politicians would be a reference to the map showed in class which demonstrated that senators and emperors came from outside of Rome, which shows how tolerant and inclusive the Roman system was, in allowing foreigners to serve in the topmost offices.

Additionally, Roman provided its far reaching regions with limited
local autonomy. In some cases, free elections were provided and
competition resulted in a peaceful transition of power from one regime
to another. There are many examples of free elections and competition
within those elections. Among them, on page 235: “He shall likewise see
to it that three citizens of the said municipality are placed at the
ballot box of each curia who do not themselves belong to that curia, to
guard and count the ballots; and that before performing such duty each
of them shall take oath that he will handle the counting of the ballots
and make report thereon in good faith…if in any curia two or more
candidates have them same number of votes, he shall prefer a married man
or one with the rights of a married man to an unmarried man without
children or without the rights of married men.”

The Roman experience shows us several things. Firstly, that they were
willing to provide equal citizenship to all people living within the
empire. Secondly, by tolerating diversity, the Romans realized that
they could rule more effectively. Lastly, local autonomy prevented
internal strife and allowed for increased stability in the interior.
This allowed the Romans to spend money on theatres and aqueducts, rather
than on the defense of their empire.
Good assessment

Group : Becki Spor, Lori McCoy

The population of the Roman Empire increased dramatically between 100 BC
and 150 AD mostly due to assimilation of outsiders into the empire. The
outside groups had much to gain from joining Rome. Protection in the
form of the Roman army "The greatest blessings that cities can enjoy are
peace, prosperity, populousness, and concord...A bounteous
productiveness of soil; a mild, temperate climate;...and security for
their offspring" RC II: 7, p. 23); theaters for entertainment and
culture; and a street grid system for orderly layout; fresh water from
aqueducts for drinking and public sanitation. The building projects were
costly and extensive, and brought a high quality of life to urban areas.
Roman citizenship was extended to these new additions (people) "Most
noteworthy by far and most marvelous of all is the grandeur of your
concept of citizenship. There is nothing on earth like it." (RC II: 16,
p.58), thereby allowing them to attain political status in their own
municipalities and also to become a senator. Romans were tolerant of
local cults and personal beliefs. These various features together
created a powerful incentive to learn Latin, and adopt other Roman
cultural traits and be part of the empire.
Good, a little bit more evidence for some of the points you made would make this a stronger paragraph, just be sure to mention the monumental evidence about the religious inscriptions on the stone found, or the maps the demonstrate that senators and even emperors come from outside of Italy. Also, you could have mentioned the great peace that Rome brought, which is almost inculded in your mention of protection above.

The Roman building projects were unprecedented in other cultures. This
was obviously attractive to outside groups that didn't have them nor the
resources or engineering ability to build them. But, why would the
Romans want more people to join their empire? The Roman Empire gained
much in resources from conquering other lands. Minerals and food sources
kept the quality of life high and the people prosperous. Gained a source
to add people to their military ranks; gained a source of taxation in
order to build their various buildings and engineering projects; gained
a new region who would not revolt against them and thereby preserve the
peace. To avoid civil war was a preeminant goal. The problem the Romans
had to overcome was feeling secure enough in their own identity to
absorb the new people. They did this by encouraging new groups to adopt
Roman ways.

The lesson we can learn from this Roman experience is that by giving
persons the ability to participate fully in the culture of their
conquerors gives them reasons to participate and contribute
productively. Citizens acquired by force, by contrast, are much less
willing to cooperate. The standards of living, as detailed above, were
much higher than much of the rest of the world at the time. Good.

Group : Jacob Elena Andrew

Why did people adopt Roman civic values?

Because there were so many advantages to adopting Roman civic values.
Many Romans were moving from city of Rome to all over the Roman Empire
and they expected urban amenities similar to those in Rome.Yes but these people were already Romanized, the question is directed towards the foreigners who were conquered by the Romans and yet decided to adopt their values, how can we account for this? There were
theaters, aquaducts, and roads, all very expensive, built all over the
empire. These amenities were ubiquitous throughout the empire.

They decided to adopt Roman Civic values because they were given peace
and all other accouterments of Roman Life. There was peace inside the
Roman empire and the people were genrerally content. Evidence? The ubiquity of
theaters suggests that Romans lived in a time stable enough to be more
ensconsed with entertainment than with the threat of war. We know this
because armies were always stationed at the borders to prevent invasion
rather than to curb civic unrest inside.

How about the Tolerance and Inclusion offered by Rome?

And what lesson can we learn from the Roman experience?

The peace is secured by a benevolent dictator. The Roman government
made sure to provide their new citizens with entertainment in the form
of theaters. Beneficence is much more motivating than maleviolence.
Rome didn't take over comletely. They allowed new provinces to keep
their governments and religions. Rome convinced new states to Romanize
by giving incentives instead of threats. New people adopted Roman ways
very willingly.

Group : A. Becker, H. Klein

A. One of the major factors for people to become Roman was that peace
was ubiquitious. Additional evidence of this can be found in your own D below. The fact that the troops were located only at the borders suggests that internally, the empire was peaceful. What does peace mean for a society? Does it mean there is more time for other things, like the development of advanced artisanship? Theatres? etc. If you don't have to spend money on supplying a huge army or fighting foreign wars, what can you spend it on? Why would peace be an incentive for people to Romanize?

"...as far as peace is concerned the people have no need of politcal
activity, for all war, both greek and foreign, has been banished and has
dissappeared from among us."

B. Higher standards associated with quality of life: for example in the Todos
Los Teatros 414 theaters were identified as well as the ubiquitious
developement of aquaducts, public baths, and a sewer system. This
quality of life was not seen in any other civilizations at the time or
for many years to come. Again, it is crucial to organize this evidence effectively with your argument. You argue that the quality of life experienced by those in Roman cities was higher and that they had running water, sewers, theatres, etc. But why would this cause people to Romanize?

C. The Romans didn't disclude people from joining they never really had
a sense of cultural superiority and believed everybody could join as
mentioned by the inscriptions first dedicated to Capriociegus, then to
Mars Capriociegus then just to Mars.

D. Basically each Roman city had its own form of city government and the
troops were not positioned internally to suggest there was a significant
amount of unrest. They were situated at the borders to deal with border
defense.

What can we learn from this Roman model?

Group : Kim C., Rachel R., Natalie S.

The Romans, in their gradual conquering of nations and territories,
Romanized each group of peoples they came across, all the while making
their way of life seem remarkable. They were welcoming in many cases,
and the conquered peoples saw the many advantages of Roman urbanization.
Some of these advantages included public amenities which benefited large
communities and portrayed a gracious attitude from the Roman government.
These included libraries, theaters, forums, temples, sanitation systems,
aqueducts and baths, all of which served the greater good of the
conquered community. The conquered peoples embraced the uniformity of
the urbanization and seemed to happily conform to the Roman models
because the Romans invested and supported the urban infrastructure so
greatly. The government showed dedication to investing in these
amenities equally for larger cities as well as smaller ones.

People of the conquered provinces readily adopted more common lifestyle
choices of the Romans, including the wearing of togas and the speaking
of Latin. They emulated the Romans as we would emulate celebrities now,
and followed trends set in the city.

Leaders allowed the Romanized peoples to continue their local practices,
including worship of established gods though they were sometimes praised
in Latin, as seen in the incription to Reve. The conquered territories
continued local elections, run entirely by the smaller communities.
These elections were free, with multiple candidates who did not have to
be recommended by someone like Augustus. This allowed more diversity in
the governing bodies of the provinces. Subjects of Rome were treated
equally under the law, so there were great equalizing benefits to being
tried under Roman law. Citizens from borderlands were tried and treated
equally as were the citizens within the city of Rome itself. Stated
Aelius Aristides, "Neither sea nor any intervening distance on land
excludes one from citizenship" (RC-2, 116). The Romans wholly included
all peoples within the reach of the Empire, and sought to treat them all
as equals.

Peace was successful across the lands, and proof of this is that armies
existed only in the borderlands. Higher urban standards, inclusion,
equal treatment under the law and local autonomy all contibuted to the
internal peace of Rome. This prosperous peace would continue for many
years, and continue the tradition of peace, allowing Rome to thrive and
expand.

From this we can learn that lasting peace can be achieved through
urbanization rather than forceful occupation, and that a benevolent
dictator with the ideals of inclusion and tolerance of diversity can
maintain order and peace.

Good response, thorough assessment and constructive use of evidence

Group : Lindsay, Jesse, Tim

The many urban amenities that Roman cities possessed were a reason to
adopt Roman civic values. Aqueducts, theaters, public toilets, bath
houses, and other amenities were all ubiquitous throughout the Roman
empire, as seen in the map of the many theaters located outside of
Italy, for example. As stated by Aristides, "Every place is full of
gymnasia, fountains, gateways, temples, shops, and schools...Cities
shine in radiance and beauty, and the entire countryside is decked out
like a pleasure ground" (RCII, 60). This implies that extravagant urban
amenities was universal to all cities belonging to Rome.

Another reason to adopt Roman civic values was the offering of Roman
peace, or the Pax Romana. The Roman army, which was stationed
around the borders of the empire to protect Roman citizens from
outsiders, rather than to hold down the Roman population. As Tacitus
stated, "We, though so often provoked, have used the right of conquest
to burden you only with the cost of maintaining peace." This implies
that despite the fact that areas had been conquered, they enjoyed peace
for the sole cost of maintaining the armies.

Another benefit of adopting Roman civic values was the inclusion
enjoyed by all Roman citizens. As evidenced by the monument to the
Keltic god Reve written in Latin, counquered nations such as Gaul were
able continue their own cultural practices while adopting Roman
tendencies, such as learning Latin. Also important to mention was the inclusion and diversity in government. The senators and emperors that came from outside of Rome displayed by the map shown in class demonstrates that tolerance, inclusion and diversity extended into even the highest offices of Rome.

Why can we learn from the Roman experience?

Group : Lisa Holley, Josh Stackhouse, Sasha Lawless

Question: Why did people adopt Roman values and what lesson can we
learn from the Roman experience?

People adopted the Roman values for three reasons: Peace, Urban
amenities, and inclusion also Tolerance.

Peace, pax ramona, armies were stationed along the Roman borders
to ensure security and Augustus was committed to keeping a peaceful
regime, important to remember though that we are not just talking about when Augustus was emperor, we are talking about the way the empire, for two centuries after his death was able to provide peace to its provinces, hence the development of the idea of pax romana, not just augustan peace.

"The Augustan peace, which has spread to the regions...from the fear of
brigandage" (RCII Patericulus pg 20).

Urban amenities included the cultural influence of the theaters and an
improved standard of living made possible by water supply, sewage
removal and available food supply, "Thereafter, one of the chief tasks
of the government was the cura annonae, keeping the capital city
supplied with grain from overseas provinces and maintaining normal
market prices" (RCII 17 pg 61)

Inclusion in the Roman society was extended as an invitation and
provided equality and tolerance at all levels, including religious
belief. "Under the principate, Roman citizenship spread gradually to
the provinces...direction of cultural unity" (RCII 15). Good, also mention the inclusion and diversity that was allowed throughout the imperial government, the inclusion of senators and emperors from outside of Italy as evidenced by map shown in class.

The lesson we can learn from the Roman experience is the benefit of
acceptance and inclusion to bring together groups to form one large
powerful society, rather than many seperate societies functioning
against eachother, rather than together. Similar to a democracy, people
feel included, that they are a part of the larger picture, even if their
ideas and beliefs are individual. Freedom to chose, worship one's own
version of god and freedom to be involved if that is what you desire.

Group : Megan W, Sarah H, Mike D, Gloria K

There were five reasons why people adopted Roman civic values: peace,
higher standards associated with urban culture, inclusion, local
autonomy and law.

The peace of Rome was known as pax romana. It was not just peace;
it was a very particular type of peace associated with Rome and her
leader. The concept of peace was closely tied with the idea of a
benevolent dictator, and Augustus succeeded in associating peace with
himself, and that he was the one who granted peace: "Of liberty the
people enjoy as much asw our rulers allot them...(23)" The altar of
Augustan peace was a monument reflecting this concept. Plutarch says
that "As far as peace is concerned, the people have no need of political
activity, for all war...has been banished and has disappeared from among
us" (23). In truth, all conflict had not been eradicated, but legions of
the Roman army were placed at the borders to defend the individual
cities. They protected them, but did not control or suppress the
internal population, allowing them semi-autonomous existence. Good, but what else does the position of the army suggest? Primarily that the conquered people assimilated peacefully and willingly, they didn't need to babysit the locals, instead they could just protect the borders. This also meant that the government could spend more money on urbanization and less on running a police state.

Another factor that drew outsiders to accepting Roman rule and culture
were the higher standards of living. There were no commerical advantages
to building so many theaters, but they were thought to promote higher
standards of cultural and intellecutal experience. Roman theaters,
latrines and aqueducts were ubiquitous all throughout the empire,
proving how willing everyone was to embracing and partaking in Roman
culture. Latrines in Ostia and Africa were of similar designs and
theaters in Spain and Rome looked the same.

There was also a great tolerance of diversity. Different political,
cultural and religious views were accepted. The inscription to Reve is
evidence of the Roman Empire's tolerance of religious views. Although
the altar was praising Celtic gods, the inscriptions were in Latin. Good, also mention the inclusion and diversity that was allowed throughout the imperial government, the inclusion of senators and emperors from outside of Italy as evidenced by map shown in class.

What about the local autonomy and law you mention above? Also what can we learn from the Roman experience?

Group : Nathan Tripathy, Won Jeong K

There were many reasons for the conquered to adopt Roman civic values.
One example is provided by Tacitus who claimed that one Roman general
speaking to the Gauls argued that the Romans, "though so often provoked,
have used the right of conquest to burden you only with the cost of
maintaining peace."

Also there is another piece of evidence by Tacitus when
he says, "He (Agricola) made the exaction of grain and tributes less
onerous by removing inequities in these obligations, eradicating
schemesfor profit which were more intolerable than the tribute itself."

Romanization provided appealing benefits for conquered peoples through
the promise of internal peace and through reduction of corruption due to
fair administration by one authority.

What about the urban ammenities, toleration and inclusion, law, local autonomy? There needs to be more to this answer.

Group : Neil R., Scott V., Drew T., Natalie R.

Subjects of the Roman empire were encouraged to "Romanize" because the
Roman state offered the conquered people a kind of peace and much higher
standards of living (or glamorous distractions, depending on the
source). The assimilation was made easier by Roman policies of social
inclusion. Excellent

On the subject of the pax Romana, Plutarch wrote: "As far as
peace is concerned, the people have no need of political activity, for
all war, both Greek and foreign, has been banished and has disappeared
from among us." This idea, that peace was freedom from war, was
allegedly echoed by a Roman general, Cerialis, in his speech to a Gallic
province: "Gaul always had its petty kingdoms and intestine wars,
till you submitted to Rome's authority...Should the Romans be driven out
(may the gods forbid!) what can result but wars between yourselves and
other nations?" Cerialis encourages the Gauls of Trier to continue being
ruled by the Roman state because it is under Rome that they have enjoyed
the greatest peace. Good, but develop this a little more, what is Cerialis suggesting? Primarily that without Roman rule there is no peace, this quote is significant because it describes the way in which roman rule and peace were associated with one another, and how this association could have appealed to the conquered peoples.

Another incentive to Romanize was the number of amenities that it
provided. Theaters and bath houses were a feature of nearly every Roman
city, in the outer provinces or in. The quality of life was increased by
the construction of sewers and running water, which logically bettered
the standard of living.

Rome's policy of inclusion facilitated an easier transition from
independence. In Cerialis's speech, he said that "We [the
Romans]...burden you only with the cost of maintaining peace...all else
is common between us. You often command our legions. You govern these
and other provinces. There is no privilege, no exclusion." This is
further evidenced by the number of authors, senators, and even emperors
originating from the provinces, suggesting a reasonable amount of social
mobility. Inscriptions on roadside altars were still to native deities,
although in Latin. All this evidence suggests that Rome permitted much
latitude in provincial matters, allowing the provinces to slowly and
almost organically Romanize. Good.

What can we learn from this experience?

Group : S. Johnson, Peter Mathiot

People were willing to adopt Roman civic values because incorporating
oneself into the Roman empire offered a number of benefits unavailable
anywhere else in the ancient world. These factors included the promise
of Roman peace, consierably higher standards of living, political and
cultural tolerance and inclusion, limited local autonomy, and the
advantages of Roman law.

From the map that shows the areas of distribution of the Roman legions,
one can conclude that there was little need for armies to be present in
the interior of the empire to keep the peace. Rather, the armies were
solely located on the frontier to guard against foriegn invasion. This
shows that there was a high degree of peacefulness within the empire,
and people were accepting Roman rule openly. From the writings of
Plutarch, we can also see that the Roman people associated peace with
Roman rule, as he states "The greatest blessings that cities can enjoy
are peace, prosperity, populousness, and concord." (RC II, pg. 23). Good, very clear and concise analysis.

Also, the Romans focused on developing urban amenities and public works
to raise the standard of living within the entire Roman empire.
Theatres, aqueducts, amplitheatres, forums, public sanitation, and other
urban benefits were ubiquitous across the entire Roman empire,
suggesting that it was Roman policy to promote them. The advantages of
Roman city life during this period were unmatched, and the high standard
of living would not be met again until the 18th and 19th centuries.

Another factor was the fact that Rome was willing to include and
tolerate political and cultural differences of those that incorporated
into the empire. We can see from various maps that famous writers, Roman
senators, and even emperors were coming from the provinces. This shows
that Roman culture and politics were not being dictated from Rome, but
even people in the provinces had the opportunity to advance in Roman
society.

One can also see that there was still a vitality in municipal politics
and a limited amount of local autonomy. People brought into the fold of
the Roman empire still expected at least the presence of an appearance
of a working constitutional republic that was present before Augustus.
We can see from inscriptions of political slogans that municipal
politics were still a viable instiitution, and that elections were not
fixed. There were multiple people running for office, and people had a
choice in wh they voted for.

Good, but what can we learn from all of this about imperialism, governance, etc?

Group : Jackson, Marcus, and Brian

There were five factors that contributed to the desire for Romanization:
pax Romana, urban amenities, Roman tolerance, local autonomy, and rule
of law.

The pax Romana is indicated by the position of the Army on the
frontier, which indicates that their was internal peace that was secured
by a benevolent dictator. Evidence?

The urban amenities that Romanization brought contributed to clean
living (i.e. running water, sewage systems, bath houses, public
restrooms, etc.) and recreation (i.e. Theaters). These Roman amenities
were ubiquitious throughout the empire and no doubt contributed to the
sustenance of the pax Romana. Yes but what does the ubiquitous nature of these amenities throughout the empire suggest? Possibly that these amenities were associated with Rome, that people knew that one of the benefits of romanizing was the eventual construction of these structures/supply of these amenities.

The conquered people were not prevented from becoming senators or moving
up the social hierarchy as indicated by the Tacitus passage, "all else
is common between us." They were also included into the Roman legal
system and were given the right to worship their own gods as indicated
by the Reve stone.

Additionally, conquered people were given limited local autonomy and
were allowed to have open elections. Roman subjects were free to run
their own local governments as they saw fit, so long as the governence
didn't contradict the wishes of Rome. Evidence?

The Roman legal system allowed ubiquitious legal rights for all who
dwelled within the empire. The Roman system was an amenity in its own
right as it provided procedures that were followed that contributed to
the greatest degree of legal fairness anywhere in the world at the time. Evidence?

The lesson that this experience teaches is that if governments want to
secure peace within their borders, they must first secure basic rights
and amenities for its people. When the people are happy, the state
remains secure.

This is a little light on evidence

Group : Sean J., Andrew P., Ian M.

Significance of the data? Recall the basic question: why did people
adopt Roman civic values? and what lesson can we learn from the Roman
experience?

It is clear that the people of the provinces in the Roman empire did not
adapt Roman values by coercion. This is evidenced by the maps showing
Roman military camps almost exclusively on the borders of the empire,
and NOT in urban areas. The cities throughout the empire distinctly
lacked military camps, showing that the people did not need to be kept
in line with direct force. What else does this suggest about the level of peace within the empire?

The values of Imperial rule are summed by Plutarch: "Greatest blessings
that cities can enjoy are peace, prosperity, populousness, and
concord...as far as peace is concerned, the people have no need of
political activity, for all war, both Greek and foreign, has been
banished." (RC 7) Ultimately, the people of the provinces chose to
integrate into the Roman empire because of the amenities provided.

Higher living standards are evidenced across the Roman empire, as we saw
in class with ancient archaelogical evidence: ubiquitous and almost
identical theaters, aqueducts, bathhouses, and other relatively
luxurious urban improvements that are not surpassed until the late 19th
Century. The similar layout of cities throughout the empire from North
Africa to France demonstrates that everyone in the Roman empire wanted
to mimic Rome itself.

The municipalities, while benefiting under Roman rule, were also able to
maintain a limited degree of local autonomy as well, making Roman rule
less undesirable than rule under other powers. This evidenced by the
existence of relatively free elections: "The goldsmiths unanimously urge
the election of Gaius Cuspius Pansa as aedile" "I ask you to elect Gaius
Julius Polypius aedile. He gets good bread" (RC 65) The fact that two
people were running for the same office demonstrates that the
municipalities had autonomy in selecting their own politicians. Note
also here that it was important for Roman emperors to preserve the image
of the old Republic to maintain the admiration and support of local
municipalities, as they wanted to uphold those values.

What about the tolerance and inclusion offered by Rome? what can we learn from this model of empire and governance?